we have a party that has both "social-left" and "economic-left" ideals in it's platform.
and a party that has "social-right" and "economic-right" ideals in it's platform.
though ultimately both are corrupt to the core, and hardly stick to their guns when it's not election season.

it's been this way since the end of the 1960's really...

before then; it worked a bit differently.

anyway my point is to say that a return to this sort of model, with

a socially-conservative, but economically-left-wing party with populist tendencies. (prudish/religious/god-fearing blue-collar-workers)

plus

a party that's "liberal"(in the original sense of the word, freedom for good or ill). (hedonistic captains of industry, minority-groups etc.)

would be a proper start. it would mean that we have actual choice, or realistic-choice anyway, still between two unsavory sides, but they'd be
somewhat more-able to actually do what they said they need to do.

I see a lot of people paying more money for health care, when we were promised savings.

That money isn't coming from the rich and it isn't benefiting any of the rest.

I live in Kentucky, an otherwise red state that took the ACA with open arms and created a very working online healthcare exchange, kynect. My
healthcare costs nosedived to $10 a month with 100% coverage after a $500 deductible, which is also taken care of by a secondary insurance. This has
been an issue close to my heart, as my wifes job is to help people in Kentucky get coverage. Those who say they have seen so much as a $1 increase in
their heatlh care costs fall into two categories.

1. They don't understand how to use the system.
2. They make an absurd amount of money and are very wealthy, despite not believing that they are.

originally posted by: BlueMule
Income inequality would almost certainly be worse today if we had a Republican president, according to an “exclusive analysis by the nonpartisan Tax
Policy Center, conducted at the request of The Washington Post” in July 2014, “that compared today’s income distribution with what it would look
like if President George W. Bush’s tax policies were still in place.”

The more I read posts from you, the more I pity you. You clearly have no idea how government works. The Republican party broke records in how often it
used the filibuster to block everything democrats wanted to do in both houses. The only reason the ACA passed was the supermajority in the House
under Pelosi. You are obviously very angry and ill informed.

You should NOT be paid more on hard work alone. A person who digs holes with a shovel all day undoubtedly works hard, but his labor is near useless.
You are paid by your production and the value you create, and that's how it should be.

By definition not everybody can be rich, for rich is somebody who posses significantly more wealth than his fellow citizens do on average. What we
need is to strive to make as good a life as possible for the masses. In part that has been achieved in America. As a burgerflipper you have access to
some very basic healthcare in America, eating meat and chocclate isnt something out of your reach and I bet there are very few employed people who go
through a winter freezing.

The other measure that is needed to keep the divide in check is inflation. And here America is lacking. Inflation closes the gape between existing
wealth and wealth acquired ad hoc, through wages for example and it reduces to some extend existing debts too. Sadly the poor are used as a safeguard
against inflation rather than anything else, instead of allowing them to enjoy fairly regular wage increases, which drive inflation and help lessen
the gap between the haves and have nots.

Indeed, the harder the work, the worst the pay.
That right there is inequality and that's exactly how our upside down world works.

On top of that, people that move up in ranks go on until they suck at what they do, hence why they stopped going up in ranks. So we have a world full
of incompetent superiors that make more money than the people under them for doing a #ty job.

It's for reasons like this that humans are barely more than animals.

You have a basic misunderstanding of what makes a job valuable. People get paid for their skills and how their skills can enrich a company, not how
hard a job is.

One problem that is seldom talked about in the American work force is apathy and laziness. I know more than a handful of people who simply go to work,
do the bare minimum, yet some how think they are not replaceable. This is where I agree with Right to Work states in the US.

An employer should have no problem in firing an employee who is not helping the company.

So are you trying to tell us the driving force of inflation is increasing minimum wage?

Not really sure what you are getting at. Seems like the word 'burger flipper' is thrown around a lot when talking about the working poor. Why is
that?

Yes, increasing wages sustains inflation. That should be self explanatory. Its the archetypical job associated with the working poor, but I guess
there are many many jobs that dont earn people enough to sustain themselves.

There is no Constitutional authorization for such a ridiculous idea, and if people are unhappy with their income, the solution isnt to take from some
to give to another. Want more money? Then make yourself more valuable.

Yeah people are lazy. If you want to get paid more money, then work hard, become rich, and maybe one day you can buy your own government. That's the
new 'merica. Get used to it. If you're not top first percent, you're bottom last.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Yeah people are lazy. If you want to get paid more money, then work hard, become rich, and maybe one day you can buy your own government. That's the
new 'merica. Get used to it. If you're not top first percent, you're bottom last.

Fortune in this context means one's chances of success or failure over an extended period of time, not money.

"Fixing" income inequality is not a function of government.

There is no Constitutional authorization for such a ridiculous idea, and if people are unhappy with their income, the solution isnt to take from some
to give to another. Want more money? Then make yourself more valuable.

Hello? It's called income tax. Last I checked, there was a huge, glaring authorization of such a scheme in the Constitution.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.